Resources / Study / Innovation for Court ADR

Just Court ADR

The blog of Resolution Systems Institute

Posts Tagged ‘AAA-ICDR Evictions’

Rental Relief and Eviction Mediation Work Hand in Hand to Make Housing More Stable

Eric Slepak-Cherney, August 19th, 2022

This article is part of a series of perspectives on eviction mediation program development that is being supported by the American Arbitration Association-International Centre for Dispute Resolution Foundation. The AAA-ICDR’s grant is enabling RSI to expand our outreach to court ADR colleagues working in the fast-evolving eviction field, and we are tremendously grateful to the Foundation for their support.

Photo by Kostiantyn Li, via Unsplash

Rental assistance has been a critical component of eviction mediation programs over the past two years. With tenants unable to work for months on end and moratoria on evictions in place, past due rent amounts soared. Conducting mediations in which tenants could not pay landlords much, if any, accumulated rent would not have been fruitful. While mediation in landlord-tenant cases has a long pre-COVID history of success, the sheer number of impacted households and amount of past-due rent threatened to destabilize housing markets and leave millions without a home in the midst of a global health emergency.

The key was rental assistance: Landlords and tenants applied to government programs, which would then make payments to landlords for past-due rent and, in some instances, for a few months in the future.

Across two separate rounds of relief, Congress appropriated over $46 billion in emergency rental assistance. Through June 30, 2022, some $32 billion of that funding had been expended. The relief was allocated to individual states, under the assumption that each state would be best situated to decide how to distribute its allocated funds most effectively. Generally speaking, the states designed their rental assistance programs along a continuum, with one end being central administration by statewide agencies, and the other being delegation of administration to individual municipalities such as cities and counties. Many fell somewhere along the continuum in a hybrid approach.

Timely Processing of Applications a Challenge

The coordination among federal, state and local governments to deliver these services has been a massive undertaking, and certainly not without challenge. An analogous challenge in coordination has arisen between the executive branches of states that are charged with distributing these funds, and the judiciaries that are charged with adjudicating the eviction cases filed in their courts. The interplay between these two, particularly around the speed at which each operates, often determines the reality of whether a tenant can successfully stay in their home.

Using Illinois, where RSI operates several eviction mediation programs, as an example, we saw early on how gaps in coordination were impacting applicants. As cases began to be filed in the wake of our state’s eviction moratorium being lifted in October 2021, the processing time for rental assistance applications was significant. Anecdotally, we heard stories from tenants, landlords and legal aid providers that it wasn’t unusual for applications to take two or three months to be approved. 

Even with many jurisdictions in Illinois electing to continue their eviction cases, some for up to 28 days, the rental application process simply wasn’t going to move fast enough in many cases to change case outcomes. While judges could potentially continue cases to allow for a decision on rental assistance, they also had to balance the needs of the landlord, some of whom had already gone 18 months or longer without collecting rent.

Expediting the Resolution Process

Commendably, our state agencies responded by developing a dedicated Court-Based Rental Assistance Program (CBRAP). This rental relief program is solely for parties to an active eviction court case, and its resolution process has been expedited to stay within the timelines of most courts in the state. The program has been effective at resolving rental assistance applications in a period of three weeks or sooner, meaning that many parties know whether they’ve been approved by the time their case comes back up for their continuance date.

RSI and our fellow mediation centers in Illinois have assisted CBRAP in expediting cases by accepting referrals from the Illinois Housing Development Authority to mediate certain pending rental assistance applications. Typically, these cases are ones in which a rental assistance application has been conditionally approved but the landlord has also secured an eviction order, often from a default judgment. Because the rental assistance terms stipulate that a landlord agrees to not evict for an additional 90 days (the rent is prepaid by the award), the primary focus of these mediations has been to help the parties make sure they both understand the terms of the agreement, including that the landlord will need to vacate the eviction order to receive rental assistance.

Complementary Programs

Our work on CBRAP complements our eviction mediation programs operating in Illinois’ circuit courts. When tenants are evicted and taken to court, our mediation programs are often the first touchpoint for many parties, and thus we make a lot of referrals to rental assistance as part of our intake and triage process.

Illinois’ CBRAP is just one example of many that demonstrate how eviction diversion programs complement and intersect with rental assistance efforts. We’ve previously showcased the Philadelphia eviction diversion program, which innovatively integrated rental assistance directly into the program model itself, and also allowed for pre-filing cases to give parties more time to explore the rental assistance. A recent webinar jointly hosted by the White House and Treasury Department highlighted the significant role eviction diversion programs have played in improving rental assistance delivery. And a forthcoming post on this blog will take a look at the unique and effective approach that was taken in Hawaii on Oahu.

Mediation Offers Lifeline for Communities Being Inundated by Flood of Evictions

Eric Slepak-Cherney, June 20th, 2022

This article is part of a series of perspectives on eviction mediation program development that is being supported by the American Arbitration Association-International Centre for Dispute Resolution Foundation. The AAA-ICDR’s grant is enabling RSI to expand our outreach to court ADR colleagues working in the fast-evolving eviction field, and we are tremendously grateful to the Foundation for their support.

More than two years since COVID-19 first broke out stateside, the U.S. housing sector remains in a state of flux. Various moratoria and relief funds at the federal, state, and local levels notwithstanding, courts throughout the country have been awash in eviction filings for some time now. For many communities, while there might be some ebb and flow from month to month, it’s increasingly looking like the new normal is a sustained level of increased activity. 

When we last saw a comparable crisis in the 2008 mortgage foreclosure crisis, inundated courts turned to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as a means to better triage and more expeditiously resolve cases. Many of these mediation programs were able to leverage pro bono legal assistance and housing counseling services to provide holistic support to parties and increase the odds of finding a resolution. Looking at courts across the country, we can see an analogous process unfolding in real time as a response to this present-day eviction crisis. A critical distinction is that where the typical judicial foreclosure process is one that operates in months and sometimes years, eviction is a process that can conclude within a few weeks—and sometimes less. 

That context underscores the urgency with which courts have had to address this issue. At Resolution Systems Institute (RSI), a nonprofit that has spent the last 25-plus years helping courts better utilize ADR, we have taken a two-prong approach to the eviction crisis. First, we have established a number of eviction mediation programs in northern Illinois to serve the communities there and to act as models that can be replicated by other jurisdictions. Second, we are studying these model programs and providing guidance to other courts looking to implement or improve their own eviction mediation efforts. 

On the Front Lines

Operating programs in three Illinois jurisdictions—which, combined, serve nearly a million residents across Kane, Kankakee, and Winnebago Counties—has provided RSI an opportunity to apply our evolving knowledge of best practices to better serve communities in distress. Lessons learned from other programs regarding housing disputes, the integrated role of support services in these cases, and how to administer all of these in an increasingly online world were all critical to us in finding our footing for this program. 

In most instances, services in our programs are accessed remotely. Court calls still take place over Zoom, though the courts do offer physical access at the courthouse for those parties who need or prefer it. Our staff and other program partners attend these court calls to educate parties about mediation at their first appearance and obtain contact information. Program staff then connects with them individually via email or telephone after court to give each party the time they require to feel heard and for our staff to properly collect all vital information. 

During intake, our staff assesses what services parties might benefit from, whether that entails legal assistance, information about rental relief funds, or help finding alternative housing, among others. Our mediation program refers people to appropriate service providers, scheduling mediation a few weeks later to provide time to take advantage of the other services. The goal is to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that parties are fully informed by the time they sit down to have their dispute mediated. Avoiding eviction is the top goal whenever possible, but sometimes that’s just not workable. What we can ensure, however, is that both parties experience a process in which their concerns were heard and they were treated fairly.

Participation in the program is mandatory for landlords if the tenant wishes to participate, and the judges may (and often do) order parties to participate. Judicial buy-in is key to almost any successful court ADR program, and eviction mediation is no exception. We cultivate that buy-in from the program’s outset, collaborating with eviction judges and court administration. We also include other program partners in the development of program procedures and local court rules. At the same time, we work to secure funding and staff up. Experience has taught us again and again that proper program management requires adequate resources to keep operations running effectively. 

Another component of successful administration is regular program partner meetings to provide updates on program processes and troubleshoot any potential issues. Such meetings are exceptionally critical in the cross-disciplinary context of evictions. The court and the mediation program are two big parts of the eviction process, but having housing counselors/advocates, legal aid, representatives for landlords and their attorneys, and sometimes municipal representatives speak to their perspectives has been instrumental to us in designing a process that works for all. 

We have been highly encouraged by the results of these efforts to date. Since Illinois lifted its moratorium on residential evictions on October 3, 2021, our programs have enrolled over 600 cases. Our programs have mediated 420 disputes, with 269 (64 percent) reaching partial or full agreement. These agreements span a wide array of outcomes, from allowing a tenant to keep his or her apartment, to negotiating a mutually agreeable move-out date, to working out payment plans for back rent owed. 

After each mediation session, parties are invited to complete a survey about their experience in mediation. Eighty-three percent of respondents believe mediation is a fair process; 78 percent of respondents strongly agree with the statement “I was able to express what was important to me.” One tenant commented that they were able to “leave [mediation] with some peace of mind.” An attorney representing a landlord commented, “Mediation has the ability to resolve the case with limited expense to the parties and resolve it more expeditiously.” In all, 70 percent of respondents would highly recommend mediation to a friend or colleague. (For those interested in reading further, we publish the stats on our surveys quarterly.)

Viewed together, the data about both the outcomes we achieve and the participant experience in mediation indicate we are on the right track, while also giving us some targeted data about where we have room for improvement. Resolution Systems Institute is grateful to the Illinois Equal Justice Foundation for funding that supports our mediation services in northern Illinois. 

Empowering Courts Nationwide

Our experience operating programs in Illinois, combined with years of experience monitoring and evaluating court ADR programs, has provided tremendous insight into how to successfully operate such programs. Now we are taking what we are learning and sharing it with others through our publications, website, blog, newsletter, and social media. RSI is grateful to the American Arbitration Association–International Centre for Dispute Resolution Foundation for underwriting our efforts to develop and share these resources with a nationwide audience. 

For example, our Eviction Mediation Special Topic was developed as a one-stop shop for courts seeking information on the subject. This Special Topic resource contains practical guidance about designing eviction mediation programs and setting up data collection systems. We have also provided sample court rules, forms, party surveys, and other materials. Individuals can also find a reading list of what we believe to be the best resources on eviction mediation.

With regard to evaluation, we recently published a program implementation report, Eviction Mediation Design and Implementation in Illinois’ 16th Judicial Circuit: Challenges and Keys to Success (Apr. 2022), that examined the design and development process in our Kane County program. This unique resource provides courts a detailed overview of how a real court ADR program was developed, including the steps and time frames involved. The report’s key findings identify five critical factors:

  • Court interest in the project
  • Judge support
  • Landlord/landlord attorney buy-in
  • Good communication among involved organizations
  • Good administration

These findings are supported by hours of interviews among key personnel involved in the program’s development. In future months, we will be publishing an implementation report concerning our other two programs, which will focus on the challenges and successes in developing a mediation program that is staffed fully by remote employees.

Conclusion

We hope that the resources RSI has provided thus far and those that are forthcoming can empower courts to design stronger alternatives to the traditional eviction process. Renters and landlords alike have navigated tremendous uncertainty over the last couple years. As evictions remain high, courts and communities can turn to RSI’s experience and guidance to assist in meeting the demand for fair, prompt services. We would also like to recognize the American Bar Association COVID-19 Task Force’s Eviction Committee and the ABA Dispute Resolution Section’s Task Force on Evictions for their work in addressing these issues. 

This article was originally published, under the title “Mediation Offers Lifeline for Communities Awash in Evictions,” in the American Bar Association Litigation Section Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee newsletter, Spring 2022 edition, Volume 26, Issue 3. Copyright © 2022, American Bar Association. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or downloaded or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the American Bar Association, the Litigation Section, this committee, or the employer(s) of the author(s).

Persistence in the Face of Resistance: Maintaining Landlord Participation in Mediation

Eric Slepak-Cherney, May 19th, 2022

This article is part of a series of perspectives on eviction mediation program development that is being supported by the American Arbitration Association-International Centre for Dispute Resolution Foundation. The AAA-ICDR’s grant is enabling RSI to expand our outreach to court ADR colleagues working in the fast-evolving eviction field, and we are tremendously grateful to the Foundation for their support.

Multiple court administrators I have spoken with over the past two years have encountered resistance from plaintiffs’ bar in eviction cases. Even if an eviction diversion program mandates the participation of landlords and tenants, your program will achieve better outcomes and run smoother when you continually cultivate buy-in from landlords and their attorneys. In this post, I will highlight some things that I have found to work.

An ideal first step is to include the voices of landlords and their attorneys during your dispute system design stage. In our Kane County, Illinois program, we included a locally renown attorney who often represented landlords in our program partner working group since its inception; this individual’s contributions at monthly meetings have given us invaluable insight that have helped us proactively address many landlord concerns. As in the mediation process itself, giving parties a voice at the program level is a critical step for them to feel engaged in the process. 

Even with representation in the program development process, unforeseen issues are bound to arise. As with any problem, research is critical. Why are landlords and their attorneys objecting to mediation in the first place? Many of the responses I hear come down to efficiency – these parties think mediation is a waste of time, that it adds an unnecessary burden to litigation, or that they can achieve the same outcomes through two-party negotiation with the tenant. Others believe mediation is an inherently pro-tenant process and therefore unfair to them and/or their clients.

In my role as a mediation program developer and administrator, it is my job to seek to understand these frustrations and address them when possible.  Landlords and their lawyers have a strong interest in administrative efficiency and resolving these cases expeditiously, and no one wants to participate in a process that they perceive to be unfair. 

Therefore, I think it’s important to review the data you have available, and try to assess the merits of these claims. With regards to efficiency concerns, you can look at your program’s resolution rate. If your program is resolving only a small percentage of cases, figure out why that is. (But beware that resolution rate can vary widely among programs and provides only a blunt measurement.) If you have information about the time to disposition, analyze whether cases that go through mediation are in fact slower. In terms of fairness, if you collect survey data regarding that metric, as we do for both parties and attorneys in our programs, your results should give you some insight at a macro level about the perception of fairness among all participants. This is all a good reminder that program procedures are not set in stone, and that you should regularly be monitoring your processes and outcomes to see where there is room for improvement.

Regardless of whether the data refutes these objections to the mediation process, or you do note some deficiencies (which, hopefully, you are able to correct), it is important to be transparent and proactive in communicating to landlords and their attorneys. In other programs we have operated, we have held forums for plaintiffs and their attorneys to openly discuss issues they have with the program. (This is something we hope to do with our eviction programs in the near future now that we have had time to get established.)

In addition to hearing from landlords and their lawyers, it is also important to highlight successes achieved in mediation as a way of inspiring confidence in the process. On a quarterly basis, we have been publishing evaluations of the surveys we collect in our programs, which usually feature some great quotes from landlords and their attorneys, as well as tenants. “We have had a good success rate using mediation. Plus, it diffuses the tendency for the parties to take cheap shots at one another and stay focused on the issues at hand,” wrote one landlord attorney.  Another noted that their “mediator did a good job of reality testing with a difficult tenant.” Publicizing these benefits of mediation is another strategy for making in-roads with resistant parties.

Ultimately, having successful mediation programs often comes down to having a dedicated champion in your corner. Just as having a judge who truly believes in ADR can be the difference between success and failure for a program as a whole, getting a landlord or attorney respected among their community on board can be a gamechanger. On a Zoom court call early on in one of our programs, a lawyer for one of the larger property management companies in that particular jurisdiction shared with the call their positive experience in a recent mediation. Though it is difficult to quantify the impact that event had, anecdotally, our program recognized that impromptu remark brought our program a tremendous amount of credibility among the landlords.

Finally, I wanted to provide a word of caution on the use of good faith clauses: these are not a panacea to participation issues, and may not even be an effective stick whatsoever. Asserting a party is in violation of a good faith clause based on their conduct during a mediation session will invite an inquiry into what took place at the mediation session. Such inquiry will quickly come up against the mediation’s confidentiality: how do you determine whether a party acted in good faith during mediation without knowing what was said or what happened? I strongly believe, and I think others would agree, that confidentiality is paramount to mediation being a forum that gives participants true voice.  As such, I would urge other program administrators to not rely too heavily on good faith clauses to get parties involved.

Instead, I hope the foregoing suggestions and anecdotes have given you some good food for thought about building real buy-in with landlords and their attorneys. Mediation is ultimately a process that needs real consent and good faith to thrive, and that is something that needs to be built and maintained over time. What strategies have you found to be successful? I’m always curious to learn about other’s experiences in operating these programs, so please drop me a line or leave a comment below.

Lessons Learned from the Implementation of a Video Eviction Mediation Program in Uncertain Times

Jennifer Shack, May 12th, 2022

This article is part of a series of perspectives on eviction mediation program development that is being supported by the American Arbitration Association-International Centre for Dispute Resolution Foundation. The AAA-ICDR’s grant is enabling RSI to expand our outreach to court ADR colleagues working in the fast-evolving eviction field, and we are tremendously grateful to the Foundation for their support.

I recently had the pleasure of writing a report on the development and implementation of the eviction mediation program in Kane County, Illinois. While the State of Illinois had an eviction moratorium in place, and in anticipation of a surge of cases when the moratorium was lifted, the court asked RSI to develop and administer the program. By all accounts, the program had a successful rollout. During the program’s first six months, referred parties and attorneys displayed an openness to mediation, the vast majority of parties and lawyers who took the post-mediation survey indicated they had a positive experience, and 54 of 81 mediations (67%) resulted in an agreement.

For the report, I interviewed individuals who played a large role in the development and implementation of the program, including the judge, the program partners and the program coordinator. We discussed their aspirations for the program, the steps taken to develop and implement the program, the program process, and program challenges and keys to success.

Universally, the interviewees pointed to five keys to the program’s success:

  • Strong court interest in the project
  • The support of the eviction judge
  • Good communication among the program partners
  • Good administration
  • Buy-in from landlords and their attorneys

The Program

The mediation program was conceived as a point of contact for multiple services to helptenants and landlords navigate the court process, obtain financial assistance, and address housing issues. It was designed within the following context:

  • The courthouse was closed due to the Covid-19 pandemic
  • The widely held expectation that evictions would surge when the moratorium on evictions ended, with the demand for mediation rising significantly as well
  • Significant rental relief (funds to help tenants pay their back and future rent) was available
  • Tenants and landlords needed to know whether rental relief would be provided to them in order to reach an agreement
  • The eviction process needed to keep moving forward while rental relief and mediation options were being sought
  • Almost all tenants in eviction cases are self-represented, as are some landlords
  • There was the potential for external funding for mediation

This context meant that the program needed to be a remote process, with cases triaged quickly and referred for other services prior to mediation. Anticipating a large number of cases, the program required a large number of mediators. RSI and the court therefore designed the program as a free, multi-step process with a full-time coordinator, legal aid and financial counseling partners, and paid mediators, all of which was possible due to the availability of multiple sources of external funding.

Lessons Learned

The individuals I interviewed outlined the multiple challenges they confronted in developing and implementing the program. The lessons they learned from working through those challenges are outlined below.

Flexibility is required, particularly when confronting uncertainty.

The program was planned while three main factors affecting that planning were very uncertain: the number of cases that would be filed, what level of funding would be available and when the predicted surge in cases would begin. These circumstances required the program partners to remain flexible during the planning phase in terms of when to ramp up their services, and it required RSI to react to the changing landscape of cases after the program launched. The ability to change procedures and to increase capacity have been essential to the continued provision of mediation to all parties interested in participating.

Communication among the stakeholders is essential.

During both the planning phase and after program launch, continued communication allowed program partners to plan and to set up efficient mechanisms for referrals. It essentially helped them to be flexible. It also served as a point of exchange of information regarding other types of services available to tenants and landlords, which helped program partners open more doors for their clients.

Judicial support is key.

The program can only function if the judges support it both by educating the parties about the resources available to them and by either strongly encouraging or requiring the parties to attend mediation. When tenants are educated about the benefits of mediation, they are more likely to want to participate.

Landlord and/or landlord attorney buy-in is required.

It is important to get the perspective of the landlords during the planning phase and to address their concerns. If the landlords and/or their attorneys do not see the value of mediation to them, they will not participate or, if ordered to, will not participate fully. Note that it is also essential to obtain the perspective of the tenants; their concerns and interests were presented by Prairie State Legal Services.

Provision of services is time-intensive.

The program was originally designed with the program coordinator (PC) conducting an intake with each party who came to her during the court hearings, letting them know about the services available and making referrals on the spot. This became untenable when the number of cases per hearing date rose to 40 or 50 and RSI found that information exchange with parties took longer than expected. To provide this kind of service would require more than one or two people. The PC, therefore, shifted to obtaining contact information from each interested party and then following up after court.

RSI’s program partners had similar challenges keeping up with demand. According to the director of program partner the Aurora Financial Empower Center (FEC), the FEC’s three counselors would not be able to assist all tenants who required help if the number of cases surged too high. Legal aid program partner Prairie State Legal Services similarly did not have the staff required to help all eligible tenants seeking their services. All of this suggests that further resources are required to provide the optimal level of service for all those who need it.

Good program administration is important.

The program coordinator’s skillful management of the program has been a key to the program’s success. Her organizational skills and development of efficient processes have made the program run smoothly.


Many thanks to the American Arbitration Association-International Centre for Dispute Resolution Foundation for its support of the evaluation of the eviction mediation program, of which the implementation report is a part. Many thanks as well, to the Illinois Equal Justice Foundation for its support of the eviction mediation program.

Go to RSI’s website to read the full report.

By the Numbers: Kane County Eviction Mediation Program

Eric Slepak-Cherney, March 15th, 2022

This article is part of a series of perspectives on eviction mediation program development that is being supported by the American Arbitration Association-International Centre for Dispute Resolution Foundation. The AAA-ICDR’s grant is enabling RSI to expand our outreach to court ADR colleagues working in the fast-evolving eviction field, and we are tremendously grateful to the Foundation for their support.

Regular readers of RSI’s Just Court ADR blog will recall that RSI has been operating an eviction mediation program in Kane County, Illinois. This program launched in May 2021. We thought now would be a good time to check in on the outcomes to date, and talk a little bit about our experience running the program thus far.

Background

Kane County is in west suburban Chicago and is home to the second largest city in Illinois. The Kane County Eviction Mediation Program launched after about nine months of development. While the process to mobilize a new program usually takes upward of a year, the looming urgency of an eviction crisis called for an expedited rollout. Within that window, we developed all the court rules, procedures and forms which the program would need to operate. We also recruited a cadre of mediators, and provided them specialized eviction mediation training through our friends at the Center for Conflict Resolution.

Most critical to the development process, we also utilized this time to collaborate with the Circuit Court of Kane County and a number of partners about how this program would operate once it went live. From studying other successful models, we knew that a holistic approach which connected parties with rental assistance, legal aid, financial counseling and other support services would make a big difference. We convened regular meetings with the Court, legal aid entities, housing counselors and the plaintiffs’ bar to devise a program model that could offer parties access to these services efficiently prior to mediation.

To make this idea a reality, we knew it would take dedicated program staff who could handle intake, triage, scheduling mediations and troubleshooting unforeseen issues as they arose. As we have written about in our Guide to Program Success, programs without day-to-day oversight will be hard-pressed to be successful long-term. In considering the numbers below, recognize that these sort of outcomes are possible because we have been fortunate to have a full-time program coordinator – who is quite exceptional! – along with a support team, amounting to about another full-time staff person.

By the Numbers

The following data is accurate as of February 14, 2022.

  • We’ve enrolled 270 households in the program. The vast majority of these, about 75%, came after Illinois lifted its moratorium on residential evictions at the beginning of October 2021. In the Kane County program, if the tenant wants to participate in mediation, the landlord is required to also participate. The eviction judge also has the authority to order cases into the mediation program.
  • We’ve held about 160 mediation sessions in 130 unique cases. Not all cases will end up going through to mediation. Some parties will be able to access rental assistance or come to an alternative agreement in between the time they enroll in the program (usually at or following their first court appearance) and when mediation would be scheduled (typically about 3-4 weeks, in advance of the 30-day continuance that was offered to many parties by the judge). In other cases, some tenants unfortunately drop off and don’t return our attempts to contact them, at which point their case is closed in the program; a number of these tenants vacate the premises in hopes of avoiding judgment.
  • The program has about a 2/3 agreement rate for cases it has mediated. We’ve helped almost 50 people remain in their homes; we’ve helped nearly 60 additional people reach agreement with their landlord to move out and move on without an eviction on their record. These outcomes highlight that keeping the tenant in the unit is not feasible in every situation, but there are other incentives for tenants to seek out agreement, such as bargaining for more time to find alternative housing, or mitigating some of the arrearages owed.
  • We’ve been able to make at least 116 referrals to rental assistance, 116 to legal aid, and 120 to housing services (some households receive multiple referrals). As we envisioned, the program is acting as a central hub to provide parties access to support services. We are always looking out for ways to expand upon this, such as mental health and wellness services, resources for self-represented landlords and additional housing support, for which demand always seems to exceed supply.

Conclusion

These numbers are a snapshot of how the program is operating, and it is not meant for definitive conclusions to be drawn without more rigorous analysis. But we thought it would be of interest to many of you to share our experience running this program thus far and what we’ve been able to achieve. We will be sharing more data in the months to come, and if you haven’t seen our previously published report on the program’s survey data, we encourage you to check that out as well.